I'm not changing the subject, you said lucy was a transitional form and I tried to address it.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html"Well, I did provide a link to a paper providing evidence for that. It's also interesting that you mention avian evolution since that transition also involved a lose of genetic information."
It is impossible for evolution to proceed by a continual loss of information. This would very quickly cause the extinction of all life. This is the opposite of evolution, and the opposite of what evolutionists claim - that random mutations create new genes with new genetic information that defines new morphological strucutre. Your assumption has no evidence, and is self-defeating.
"We already know from fossils that many theropods already had feathers and that modern aves have lost many features since evolving from maniraptorans."
Thisa assumption is unsupportable and hypocritical. If dinosaurs already had feathers, it is illogical to believe feathers evolved for the purpose of flight.
"can get a good idea of their cell size and as a result their genome size"
Cell size and genome size do not indicate evolutionism. They refute it. The Ameoba has the most genetic material of any living thing. Here you are shooting yourself in the foot, as you claimed a loss of genetic information is a mechanism for evolution, which is perposterous, and now you claim genome size is an indication of ancestry. This makes the unspoken claim that larger genomes indicate heredity and smaller ones also indivcate heredity, which contradicts your statement that a loss of genetic information is a mechanism for evolution, and is also discredited by the Ameoba.
"Add that with what we know about dinosaur phylogeny the line leading up to birds experienced a net loss in genome size, thus a loss of what you call information."
We know no such thing. Phylogenetics demonstrates only that creatures which share a common environment were designed to have similar features because these features make them best suited for thier environment.
Many creatures share features such as a toothy mouth and other features which evolutionists claim is because they're related by evolution, but these creatures defy evolution because of the great morphological differences between them, and features such as mimicry - the abilities to change the color, texture, and shape of their skin to simulate the enivronent or other creatures. Creatures which evolutionists believe are not related by related by evolutionary ancestry, such as cuttle fish, octopus, squid, camelion, and other creatures, don't share mimicry. But evolution can't provide an explaination for mimicry because nature can't provide a mechanism whereby a creature could posess from birth an ability to mimic it's environment, or the features of the creature which produce mimicry. Thus, such features as toothy mouths or any other feature are products of design, just as mimicry is a remarkable example of good principles of design.
Yolk Sac - evolutionists claim the yolk sac of humans and chickens is evidence we are distantly related. In chickens, the yolk sac nourishes the embreyo during development. But in humans the yolk sac does not nourish the embryo because humans are attached to their mother by the umbilical cord. The yolk sac instead is the source of the human embryo's first blood cells. Here we see that homologous features are not evidence of evolutionary ancestry, but are instead elements of common design.
Ernst Heakel promoted this concept over a century ago and was ridiculed and shamed for it. This idea became known as "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny." He proposed that the transverse clefts the necks of human embryones are vestigial of fish gills, and that this was evidence that embryology provides evidence of ancestry. This is false however, as it is now known that the first of these pouches develop into the palatine tonsils, the sencond become the middle ear cannals, and the 3rd and 4th become the parathyroid and thymus glands. Many common structures in embryos become copmpletely different morphological features in different species because the genetic instructions that produce them are different, which discredits the idea that they are common because of ancestry.
Humans born with what looks like a tail is merely a piece of skin covering fat, and is caused by an error in the way the spinal system develops as it "zippers shut" going downward. When it does not go far enough, it causes Spina Bifida. When it goes too far, it produces what evolutionists falaciously call a vestigial tail.
Though discredited by modern science, the concept of Phylogenetics being evidence of evolution is still pushed by evolutionists. For example, the university text book titled BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine continues to provide photographic examples of the embryos of various species, including humans, and claim it is evidence of evolution. In fact, This book contained the illustrations of Earnst Haekel until creationists complained that Haekel's drawings had been revealed as falacious, at which time Miller asked the publisher to replace them with newer illustrations of the same sort.
Understanding Wvolution, Berley University web site, states.
"Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed."
Here they attempt to resuce Phylogenetics as evidence of evolution by making it seem that it simply "more intricate and quirky" than Haekel claimed.
The old lie is still being pushed by evolutionists, though the claim that Phylogenetics is evidence of evolution has been discredited by countless examples of design in living creatures, and the very properties of DNA itself.
Some university books still promote thie falacy of Ernst Heakel, including BIOLOGY by Wm. C. Brown, Debugue, 1995, p. 396, which states that fish, reptiles, birds, and humans all share "gill and a tail" in their early development. Another university text titled BIOLOGY by Saunders, Orlando, p. 383, 1999 states, " claims that the "early stages of embryonic development are almost identical in different vertebrate species. Numerous structural similarities are shared by the early stages, including the presence of gill pouches and a tail'.
And there are others as well. The falacy that Phylogenetics and embryology provide evidence of evolutionary ancestry is falsified, and still pushed by evolutionistrs desspite what science has demonstrated since these old concepts were formed in the 19th century.
The evolutionist tree of life is a distortion of taxonomical organization. The evolutionist considers creatures which have similar features are more closely related by ancestry to each other than creatures which do not share certain features. This is based upon their presumption that evolution has produced the great variety of life forms and that shared features shared are related by evolutionary ancestry. Life produces after it's kind, and evolutionists incorrectly group many families and genus of life into larger groups based upon the presumption of evolution. Phylogenetics was invented by creationists, but Phylogenetics demonstrates only that organism of various kinds have similar features. It does not provide evidence of evolutionary ancestry, which is discredited by the fact that life was obviously designed.
Epigenetics discredits the claim that phlogeny provides evidence of evolution. The fact that changes during embryonic development require information which is provided by the the presence of all homeobox genes is a problem for evolutionists claiming that similarities in the embryonic cells of creatures of different phylum is evidence of common ancestry between the phylum because the changes which occur to these cells is based upon epigenetic information which requires the entire genome of the organism to be fully in tact - the genome of a phylum. If the genome of one phylum were not very different from the genome of another, different phylum would not exist. This demonstrates that the similarity in the embryonic cells is not based upon similarity, but difference.
Germ layers provide the foundation for the development of anatomical feaures. Creatures with a third germ layer have more complex morphologies than those with two germ layers. Since the cells of germ layers develop the morphological features of creatures during embryonic development, evolution must contend that the evolution of an additional germ layer somehow posessed foreknoweldge of the features they produce. Furthermore, the cells of germ layers are not directly related to each other across genus. For example, the cells of germ layers which develop the heart in humans don't develop a heart in worms. Thus, germ layer cells themselves are not related to structure homogenously across genus, and germ layers are not evidence of evolutionary ancestry, and the claim that because humans and worms have 3 germ layers they are related by a divergent evolution event long ago.
"Many transitional species we've found are represented by individuals ranging between adults and infants."
There is no such thing as transition and no evidence of it, and much evidence life is not capable of changing morphologically due to change in the DNA. 70 yrs of muytation experimentation have demonstrated that random mutation is incapable of causing change to the morphology of species.
"For example AL-288-1 is an adult female Australopithecus afarensis, and we've also found the remains of infants of that same species like the DIK-1/1 specimen."
Finding both adolescents and adults of an extinct ape does not provide evidence of evolution. That's a no-brainer.
"such as the presence or absence of milk teeth and fusion of the cranial elements, which are used to identify the age of death of these animals."
That does not provide evidence of evolution. because skull bones fuse in mammals is not evidence of evolution. Australipethicenes do not have deciduous molars. Humans do. They also have fewer skull bones than humans. These are morphological differences, and there is no evidence that morphology is capable of changing.
"you talk about ape ontogeny which, but don't realize that when you compare the development of chimps to us you'll find it's nearly the same. The only major difference between two of us is that we retain a pedomorphic build and an increase in cranial volume."
False. Firstly, the human brain develops 3 times faster than apes. This discredits evolution, s there is no explaination how evolution could cause suddently an organism's brain to develop 3 times faster than it's supposed ancestor. The human brain is also 3 times larger. Evolutionists would have to believe some kind of magic takes place that for some reason evolution ever so slowly developed an increasing brain size, then for some rreason it was capable of causing brain size to develop at blistering speed in the human being. Also, there are morphological differences as already described - humans and apes, including australiopethicenes, have a different number of bones, buscles, tendons, in various locatrions in their bodies. There is no evidence that morphology is capable of being changed in science. There is no known mechanism for morphological change, which you must provide to make the claim of morphological change scientific. Again I ask, where is this mechanism that is known and has been observed, tested, and is repeatable so that it can be called scientific? Again, I ask you to confine your discussion to science. You are stepping outside the bounds of science and presenting assumptions as if they were scientific. I do not accept assumptions as scientific for anything other than the formation of hypotheses. Confine your discussion to science. Provide me with a machanism for morphological change before claiming further that morphological change takes place.
"...doesn't this mean that humans and chimps are the same morphologically, since humans haven't evolved a novel structure after the split between our LCA with chimps?"
I have already informed you that apes and humans do not have the same morphology.
"So since a chihuahua and a great dane, despite being similar, can't interbreed, they can't be related can they?"
They are capable of reproduction, but not breeding. They are the same kind. Their genetics allows for reproduction.
"Ichallenge you to breed a miniature dachshund and a timber wolf."
Thier genetics allows for reproduction. Thier body sizes do not. This is not evidence of evolution. You have been informed that dog breeds are not evidence of evolution because there is no morphological difference between any 2 dogs, regardless of their shape or what they look like.
"I know your bastardized definition of "morphology" and I already have presented exactly what you've asked."
You have not. Nobody is "bastardizing" the definition of morphology, you just don't like facing the facts regarding morphology because it refutes evolutionism. Mporphology ids the form and structure of a life form. Form AND structure. Not form alon, not structure alone, form AND structure. Attacking science, as in the definition of morphology, illuminates the fact that you are as an evolutionist antiscience.
"But if you want another example, we've seen chickens develop webbed feet from a mutation which prevents apopotisis of interdigital webbing in embryonic development, both in controlled laboratory settings and in the real world."
Webbed feat in dogs is not a morphological difference. All dogs have a web of skin between their toes,. In dogs in which it is pronounced, it is simply an increase in the same tissue. It is not a new structure. All dogs alreadsy have skin between their toes. More of the same cannot promote evolutionism, which claims morphological changes of unimaginable number have and do still take place.
The examples you cite of ducsk without webbing and chickes with it are not evidence of evolution. They are deformities and not permanent in the species - these deformities dissapear in offspring in 1 to several generations and the animal will revert to it's wild type. I could show you a picture of a human with 2 mouths orextra skin under their neck too, and this would not be evidence of evolution either.
"And we have experiments showing that this can happen."
There are no experiments which demonstrate that morphology of a species is capable of changing, only that deformities can arise in individuals. The paper you cite does not provide such evidence either, because none exists. It states, "Our current un-derstanding of the "Hox code" sug-gests that at least two paralogous groups are functioning at any AP lo-cation to achieve wild-type vertebral morphology. No information exists to suggest whether the two paralogous groups are expressed in the same cells and perform presumably different functions or if, at the time points when morphology is being estab-lished, the active paralogous group proteins are expressed in distinct sub-sets of cells"
It merely states that patterns of expression of the HOX genes determine morphology during embryonic development - which is evidence of design and description of the only known mechanism for defining morphology - embryonic development. It makes the assumption that .It makes the outrageous assumption that Ernst Heakel made over 100 yrs ago and was discredited and shamed for. Evolutionists are still pushing his concept of Ontology Recapitulates Phylogeny, though it is discredited. The paper you cite speculates that changes to the genetic material over time will cause the expression of various HOX genes to produce morphological change that is a mechanism for evolution, which is scientifically unsupported. This is antiscience. You are promoting a scientific falacy that died over 140 yrs ago and is still being pushed like a drug into school books. There is no evidence that morphology can change in species. Deformities revert in offspring, there is no known mechanism for morphological change, and mutation has been discredited as a mechanism for the morphological change of species.
"And didn't you say that duplication of existing body parts, like polydactyl, does happen but doesn't count as evolutionary change? Now you are changing your position again. Besides that even your own source states that the number of thoriac, lumbar, and sacral vertebra range between humans and overlap each other."
Once more, polydactyly is a negative and not permanent in species. It cannot be a mechanism for evolution. Also, more of the same is not evolutionary change. it cannot produce amphibians from fish or mamals from reptiles. A range of the vertabrae does not indicate evolution. It indicates we are different.
"Sometimes features can appear relatively rapidly and others appear gradually."
That's a grand assumption for which there is no evidence. Again, please confine ytour disscussion to science, not your personal opinions, speculations, conjectiures, and assumptions.
"And I've already given you examples of gradualism and punctuate equilibrium, in my previous post."
Again, please confine your disscussion to science, not your personal opinions, speculations, conjectiures, and assumptions. There is no known mechanism for the morphological change of species, nor evidence of it in the fossil record. The fossil record proclaims stasis - non-change. I can provide you with 100 quotes by evolutionist scientiwsts who state the fossils indicate only non-change and that the lack or absence of transitional forms is a problem for evolution. Once more, placing creatures of different morphologies next to each other does not indicate morphological change. To demonstrate morphological change, you need a series of fossils of a creature which demonstratee, for example, a specific bone arising, first it's parapopheses and diapopheses, then the bone itself, then the same bone longer, then longer, until you have the same creature with new bones or a new bone. There are no such fossils known. Not one such series of fossils exists. The fossil record indicates life has not changed one bit. We have recovered over 1 billion fossils from the earth, and not one series of transitional forms has been discovered. We find animals which are extinct, and animals which are living and have not changed. We have no transitional series that demonstrates any creature changing morphologically. Placing 2 animals of different morphologies beside each other is not evidence of evolution!
"Yes we do. Don't take this the wrong way, but do you remember your childhood? Don't you remember losing your "baby" teeth in primary school and new ones growing back?"
I misspoke. Humans have deciduous molars. Apes do not. This is a morphological difference. There is no evidence of this transition either!
"the Taung child which did have milk teeth"
This ape was a variety of chimpanze, and has chimpanze teeth:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/E ... %20jaw.jpg Zuckerman suggested that they be classified as apes, not hominids (Evolution as a Process, 1954):
"There is, indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape - so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them".
"If you are referring to the nuchal torus, that was lost in the line of derived African Homo erectus (called H. ergaster by some experts) leading up to our species, but was retained in the paranthropids, as well as the Asian group of H. erectus."
Lost in Homo Erectus? Which one? This one?
http://www.dbtechno.com/images/Homo_ere ... prints.jpg Or this one?
http://www.connecticutvalleybiological. ... an2204.jpg On has it and the other does not. Variety within the kind is not evidence of evolution. There are differences in the robustness of different bones in humans as well, even in the slope of the forehead which can vary greatly in humans. In some humans, the forehead is nearly vertical. In others, it slopes dramatically. This is not evidence of evolution. It is evidence of variety within the kind. We know this: chimps and gorillas have this ridge, as do australiopethicenes, humans do not. That is evidence of difference, not evidence of being the same.
"The foramen magnum is variable in many ape species and more posteriorly in non-bipedal species, like chimps and pongids"
It is always located dead-center in humans and not so in any ape. You are assuming the foramen magnum has migrated. There are no transitional forms between the bipedalism of humans and limb-walkers and knuckle-draggers of apes. The pelvis of australiopethicenes does not allow for upright walking. It's Illiac Blade points outward, it's knees are bent inward, and it does not have a locking knee joint. This is a wilmb-walker design. Such a creature could not walk upright for long before it's thigh muscles became exhausted. It is not bipedal. Thus, the location of the foramen magnum is not evidence of evolution because it is more forward in australiopethicenes than other apes as the pelcis of these apes verifies it was not capable of bipedalism, and thus the location of their foramen magnum is not indication they were becoming bipedal!
"And as I said before according to you Sahelanthropus is not an ape because of the location of its foramen magnum"
Nonsence. It is most certainly an ape:
http://www.southernbiological.com/Asset ... /BH029.jpg "Then Homo neanderthalensis, H. erectus, and all other species in the genus Homo, except us, should all be considered apes, and we shouldn't be?"
80% of the protiens in humans are not found in apes. This is a biochemical difference of the most basic kind that proves apes and humans cannot be related. Furthermore, the hot swapping points of the DNA of apes and man are almost entirely different. It is not possible for these to migrate, as the change of one of them would cause either gross deformity or death.
"These proteins are what make humans and chimpanzees distinct species, and 80% of these protiens are not completely different from our own."
False. Gene, volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219, states, referring to the protien difference between humans and chimps, I quote:
"However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... eaab34f1af I suppose now you are going to claim these scientists have their information wrong? Perhaps you did not actually read what their paper says? Surely you saw this statement in the abstract. Didn't you?
"Way to be called on an outright lie, twice."
Wait now. You just stated Gene's paper did not say there is an 80% difference between the protiens of humans and apes, which it clearly states, and now you call me a liar? I think you're getting frustrated. Be calm. Get your facts right before calling someone a liar. You have states many science falacies, but I have not called you a liar.
"Then species like the neanderthals are apes, and we aren't?"
Neanderthal was not an ape. It was an inbred, disease-ridden, genetically destroyed tribe of man. They suffered from rickets and scurvy and arthritis and their DNA was made into a mess by random mutation and inbreeding. That's why they became extinct. Their skeletons are fully human but deformed because of disease.
"I thought you said changes in location, size and shape, don't qualify as differences in morphology?"
A locking knee joint is not a change of location, size, or color. It is a morphological difference.
"Besides that does this now mean that some australopith species no longer qualify as apes since their hallux are no longer divergent?"
Your question is unworthy of response, evenso, Australiopethicene finger bones are curved. Man's are not. Though this is not morphological difference, it does not provide evidence of evolutionary change. It demonstrates only difference between man and ape.
"No it doesn't prove either of those things. While the recombination hot spots are different, you forgot to mention the level of similarities the scientists who conducted the study noted, which indicate relation."
There is no ability for the hotswap locations to migrate. When this occurs in humans, it causes gross deformity that makes the person unfit for survival, or death. This kind of mutation is one of the most deadly known. Evolution could not migrate these swapping points. They can only be different by design. Migration of them is a dead end for evolution.
Encyclopedia Britanica:
"Polyploid animals are far less common, and the process appears to have had little effect on animal speciation."
w w w . britannica . c o m / EBchecked / topic / 469046 / polyploidy
"Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome ... Subsequent cytogenetic studies revealed a chromosomal deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4. Clinical features include mental retardation, seizures, distinct facial appearance, and midline closure defects. The former Pitt-Rogers-Danks syndromes, caused by overlapping 4p deletions, now are considered as a part of Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome."
w w w . dmoz . o r g / Health / Conditions_and_Diseases / Genetic_Disorders / desc . h t m l
Polyploidy is lethal in humans. Normally, humans have two complete sets of 23 chromosomes. Normal human cells, other than sex cells, are thus described as diploid. Two polyploid conditions occur in humans. Triploidy ( three set of chromosomes that results in 69 chromosomes with XXX, XXY or XYY sex chromosome) and tetrapolidy (92 chromosome and either XXXX or XXYY sex chromosome). Triploidy could result from the fertilization of an abnormal diploid sex cell with a normal sex cell. Tetraploidy could result from the failure of the zygote to divide after it replicates its chromosomes. Human zygotes with either of these conditions either die before birth, or soon after. Interestingly, polyploidy is common in plants and is essential for the proper development of certain stages of the plant life cycle. Also, some kinds of cancerous cells have been shown to exhibit polyploidy. Rather than die, the polyploid cells have the abnormally accelerated cell division and growth characteristic of cancer.
Polyploid is a very rare genetic error in animals. It typically occurs only to the gametes (egg or sperm cell). This error, if it were to occur during embryonic development or at any time after the gamete stage, is fatal. When it occurs to humans it does so to limited or specialized cells, such as those of the liver or salivary glands. It it were to occur when the embryonic cells are dividing, the organism would die, because development would be screwed up badly. Zygotes that receive a full extra set of chromosomes, a condition called polyploidy, usually do not survive inside the uterus, and are spontaneously aborted. It leads to rapid changes in genome structure, gene expression, and developmental traits.
Aneuploid and polyploid cells in animals and humans are often associated with carcinogenesis. Polyploidy can cause birth defects and conditions such as Down's syndrome where each cell has 3 copies of a particular chromosome instead of one. A large percentage of spontaneous abortions are a result of polyploidy. In humans, it typically causes birth defects, spontaneous abortion, Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, Down's syndrome, and Edward's syndrome.Children with trisomy 21 have the characteristic face with a flat nasal bridge, epicanthic folds, protruding tongue and small ears. Among possible malforamations cleft palates, hare lips, and cardiac malformations (atrial and ventricular septal, and atriventricular canal defects). Mental retardation is always present at various degree. The life span once the individual has survived ranges between 50 and 60 years. Trisomy 18, known as Edwards' syndrome, results in severe multi-system defects. Most trisomies 18 results in spontaneous abortion. Affected infants have a small facies, small ears, overlapping fingers and rocker-bottom heels. Cardiac and other internal malformations are very frequent. Newborns with trisomy 13 have midline anomalies as well as scalp cutis aplasia, brain malformations, cleft lip and or palate, omphalocele and many others. Polydactyly is also frequent. Children with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 usually survive less than a year after birth and are more likely to be females.
Animals to which this error occurs during the gamete stage can breed only with others of their species that are also polyploid! When such a mistake occurs in an animal, it is incapable of breeding with any other unless it too is the same. Thus, if chromosome 2 were merged in a human, it could not breed, and the mistake dissapears in the gametes of that person (sperm or egg cells) in a single generation - for good - when that person dies. It cannot therefore be hereditary in humans.
"What do you mean? What part of evolution requires that humans have more DNA than our cousins?"
The 10% more DNA of chimps discredits evolution because it would indicate, for evolution, that humans have lost 10% of their genetic information. This would obviously be disasterous for any living thing. Are you claiming the loss of 10% of the genome of an organism will not only allow it to survive or cause it to become something with new, greater capabilityies, such as becoming bipedal and increasing the number of bones in the skeleton and having a brain 3 times the size of chimps? Are you actually claiming it is logical that the loass of 10% of the genome would not only not be fatal, but could somehow account for the increase in bone numbers and brain size and morphological differences?
"but I'd like to get your source on the information provided above."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3003370 Humans have two α-globin genes; HBA1 and HBA2, which are both at locus 16p13.3 ("HBA1," nd; "HBA2," nd). Not only do chimps also have two α-globin genes (Liebhaber & Begley, 1983), but "human and chimpanzee G-gamma, A-gamma, alpha, and beta globin sequences are identical (Goodman, Moore, & Barnabas, 1972, p.43)."
If you want more, there are plenty of them. Google will turn up plenty of information for you, though it will be filled with evolutionist assumptions that this difference evolved.
"And why does this minor difference, according to you, separate humans from the family of great apes?"
Minor? There is nothing minor about basic differences in the design of the DNA of apes and man.
"Any extant non-human ape"
No, all apes. The human brain is 3 times larger than any ape known, past or present.
"And yeah, the only significant difference between humans and extant hominoids is cranial volume."
Now you're just playing ignorant by ignoring the morphological, genetic, and biochemical differences I have already informed you of. Brain size is significant. Evolutionists must believe that random mutation could design a brain 3 times larger with all of it's unimaginably complex wiring and chemistry. It is perposterous to believe mutation could design the brain, much less to believe that it could cause it to develop at such break-neck speed to suddenly appear in humans 3 times the size of australiopethicenes! But, such is the insanity of evolutionism.
"Besides we have fossil intermediates which demonstrate the transition from chimp-sized apes to derived bigged brained apes like ourselves"
There is no such thing. Again, placing different species of apes next to each other does not provide evidence of evolution. The morphological, genetic, and biochemical difference between man and any apes is unsurpassablly discrediting for evolution.
"In fact H. neanderthalensis had a much larger cranial capacity than we do."
That is false. It is the same size and sometimes a bit larger. You have stated a gross exaggeration, a falacy.
"Most anthropoid primates, like ourselves, have trichromatic vision. So why are you pointing out the exception, rather than the rule?"
It's a difference between man and ape.
"Wrong. Australopith remains date from about four million years ago until about two million years ago."
WRONG
2.9-2.4 million years ago
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australo ... icanus.htm 3.9-4.2 million years ago
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/walker ... feways.htm 2.3 to 3.3 million years
https://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ ... icanus.htm 1.5 Ma--ca. 2.5 Ma
http://www.profleeberger.com/files/BERGER_ET_AL.PDF Various dates here:
http://blue.utb.edu/paullgj/anth2301/le ... hecus.html 1.4 million years
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 83fe690223 It goes on and on. In years pat, it has been dated with even wilder date ranges. All of this demonstrates the worthlessness of dating methods and the evolutionist's assumption. If one believes the dates are accurate, then it must be believed these creatures existed for millions of years without changing, while it is at the same time claimed that man evolved from them in only about 240,000 to 1 million years! How perposterous evolutionism is.
"Australopiths weren't "half-bipedal", they were obligate bipeds."
That's impossible. Their Illiac Blade points outward, their knees bent inward, and they had no locking knee joint. it is not possible for them to have been bipedal. A curved Illiac Blade, parallel-ish knees, and a locking knee kjoint are requirements of bipedalism in an upright standing two-legged animal!
"Further more the study you reference actually comes to the opposite conclusion that you say it does."
I could not care less about the assumptions of evolutionists. The bones don't lie.
"Plus bonobos, despite being knuckle-walkers, have proportionally longer legs than troglodytes do and have a tendency to walk bipedally when carrying young or supplie"
No ape can 3walk upright for more than a short distance because it must walk with bent knees which will exhaust the thigh muscles. Bears can walk upright for short distances too, but you do not claim man is closely related to bears. Kangaroos walk upright almost always, but you do not claim man is closely related to them either. You are willing to believe man and ape are related, despite the fact that apes are not bipedal because of your paradigm, not the physical evidence. So you're willing to state that because a bonobo can walk upright for a short distance, this is evidence of evolution. That's antiscience.
"I'd say these could qualify as "half-bipeds""
Then you think being able to walk upright for short distances is evidence of evolution? So you think therefore we are also closely related to bears and kangaroos?
"Wrong. H. erectus was a very successful species which lived for over a million years, spreading across Africa and Asia"
It is still true that, as I said, those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn't supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.
"No part of paleoanthropology demands that H. erectus should not have been living so recently and some anthropologist think that their's and our close cousins, H. floresiensis may have lived when the first modern humans first began to settle Indonesia."
That's incorrect. Man is claimed to have evolved from such creatures less than 1 million years ago. The evolutionist is stuck with believing man's ancestors existed unchanged for millions of years (remember the dates for them?) then suddently man experienced a vast number of changes in a brief geological measure of time. How convenient for evos! How nonscientific it is to believe these random mutations caused no change for millions of years, then somehow they attacked a species and it turned into man really quickly, as if man's ancestor was somehow immune to these constant mutations. Evolutionism is not science. It's assumptions conjectured as fat without any evidence, because it is false.
"Not really."
Yes really, YOu did not answer my question:
Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?
"This is why some experts debate as to whether or not they should be placed in the genus Australopithecus or kept in Homo, and why they are a perfect transitional species."
They argue about thier classification because classifying them as ancestors of man is perposterous, ans my wquestion illustrates. How can they be a perfect transition when they were incapable of bipedalism?
"Why is it that creationist seem to be unable to decide if (as well as some of the H. erectus individuals you mentioned earlier) they are "100% human" or "100% ape"?"
The image you provide is fraudulent because it implies creationists classify apes as human. No creationist classifies apes human. Evolutionists classify humans as apes and slap the titles Hablis and Erectus on any fossil skull that shows variety. Variety exists considerably even in modern human skulls. As i mentioned, some people have a greatly sloping forehead while in others it is nearly vertical. Differences exist in other parts of the skull as well. Because an evolutionist labels a skull hablis or Erectus does not make it an ancestor of man. Furthermore, I might not agree with every classification made by anyt creationist OR evolutionist scientist!
"The habilines are a perfect morphological intermediate between australopiths and derived humans"
You're welcome to believe that, but if you do, you should tell me what makes them so.
"And they also happen to be in the perfect chronological position being right before the geogoricus people and right after the gracile australopiths."
Gracile? Impossible. They could not walk upright with the pelvic and leg features I told you about.
"You shouldn't use the same dishonest creationists arguments which were already [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC054.html]exposed[url] six years ago."
Nothing can be learned from talkidiotsdotcom. Only brainwashing and misinformation can be derrived from them.
"Transitional taxa are defined by their morphological features, and not necessarily their chronological placement. But even then I've shown that you are wrong on that point anyway."
They are not bipedal. They are not transitional.
"What omissions? You're not seriously trying to fabricate a conspiracy theory are you?"
How about the wildly different dates that man's supposed ancestors are labled with? You don't hear evos tell students of this in college courses. It's kept quite. One must dig to find oit out. They simply put them on a chart, pick the date they like to fit this chart, and proclaim, "Look! This one evolved into that one at this date!" and you are expected to believe only what information they pick and chose.
"Fortunately I've covered this in this post and in my previous post."
You did not. You have not provided evidence that demonstrates morphological change - the change from the number of ape caudal veretabrae to those of man, the flattening of the rib cage, the migration of the foramen magnum, the intermediates for a locking knee joint, the seperation of new bones from extant bones... None of this evidence exists and you have provided none of it. The only thing you have is a foramen magnum that is closer to the center in an ape you believe is an ancestor of man. That's not enough to claim evolution happened. You need lots more evidence than this, real evidence. Show me a transitional locking knee joint, changing vertabrae, new bones arising in part in several fossils, such as ribs and sjull bones. No? I thought so. No evidence. Again, placing animals of different morphologies next to each other does NOT provide evidence of evolution.
"Our ancestors evidently retained a divergent hallux in the ardipithecines and that didn't change until the first australopiths evolved"
YOu have a dating method problem. Which fossil are you talking about and when did this occur in your mind? There are no transitions between the hands and feet of apes and man.
"The fossil specimen Stw 543 bears a hallux intermediate between the ardipithecines and later Australopithecus."
It does no such thing. They have the same bones in the same locations. Because thier bones are shaped a bit differently is not evidence of evolution. Humans have both vertical and sloping foreheads, robust or nearly absent chin protuberances, etc. Show me the series with new bones arising, not just in part, but one to the other. Where are they? OH THAT'S RIGHT. THERE ARE NONE.
"Later this toe became only slightly divergent as indicated by the Laetoli footprints, until they were defiantly alongside the rest of the foot, as you can see in Homo habilis (see OH 8)."
There is no transitional series of fossils between the adjucted great toe of hoiminids and man's great toe. We have on and the other and nothing inbetween. You assume transition and call it science without physical revidnece. That's antiscience. You are an enemy to science, not a supporter of it.
"Our HOX genes are in the same location. And are you confusing "HOX gene swapping points" with transposons?"
No, I am stating that the migration of HOX genes is not possible but would have to be for fish to become amphibians, amphibians to become reptiles, reptiles to become birds and mammals, and apes to become man. Not all of the hox genes of man and ape are in the same location in the DNA. Remember, chimps have 10% more DNA than we do. That's a lot of base pairs where they should not be if evolution were true. Again, the difference in the swap points of our DNA and those of apes discredits evolution. When htey are relocated by mutation, it causes deformity that makes the animal unfit to survoive or they are stillborn.
"Humans, like all other metazoans, don't have cell walls."
I meant cell membranes.
"Wrong. The angle of the femur and the broad short hips of the australopiths are more like those of humans"
WIERD WRONG YOU ARE. WIERD. You show a picture of dissasembled bones.
australopith sediba:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/upload/ ... -44304.jpg This is the proper standing leg position for a human:
http://www.horseracinghistory.co.uk/hrh ... eleton.gif Stand and place your weight evenly on both feet. Look at your legs. YOU ARE WRONG. But evods, wanting us to believe in evolution, depict humans like this next to their claimed ancestors:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-me ... 06714A.jpg Do you see how evolutionists fudge and manipulate the truth to make evolution seem plausible? I hope you learned something from this.
"Note the shape of the illiac blades and the angle (or lack thereof) in the femoral neck and the relatively straight body of the femur and compare that with this:"
Yes indeed. Look at it. One is definately no human!
"Actually I have seen the creationist misrepresentation of that documentary as well."
I'M SORRY, BUT YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE EVOLUTIONIST PALEONTOLOGIST IN THAT VIDEO MANIPULATED THE PELVIS BONE BY RESTRUCTURING IT TO MAKE THE ILLIAC bLADE FLATTER. It is an example of the dishonesty of evolutionism and evolutionists.
"And even if we were to ignore that, there are a variety of diagnostic characters proving that the australopiths were defiantly bipedal, including:"
Impossible. Thier Illiac Blade points outward and they have no locking knee joint and their knees bend inward.
"Those mechanical problems are what separate species."
There is no evidence mrphological change is possible and no known mechanism for it. I have asked you repeatedly for evidence that morphology can change and a mechanism for it to support your claims. Will you provcide it or must I ask for it endlessly?
"Even humans could produce hybrids with chimpanzees. We know that the genetic differences between our species are so fine that some scientists think chimpanzees should be placed back in to the genus Homo."
Wow. You've lost it. I insist you provide an example, evidence. Not an assumption, but a physical example. The ability of sperm to penetrate the egg does not mean a viable organism would result. You're way out in space with that wild assumption.
"Tetrapods express interdigital webbing between digits in embryonic development. Usually this stuff is "turned off" and undergoes apoptosis due signaling from BMPs (bone morphogenic proteins) which is good because in some animals, like apes, because this separates the digits. However in the case of webbed footed birds, like geese, a protein called gremlin, preserves the interdigital webbing resulting in webbed feet. Scientists tested this by applying gremlin to the interdigital webbing of developing chickens and they got this:"
Homologous appearance of structure during embryonic development does not provide evidence of evolution! Y0u're trying to rehash Haekels dead and discredited claim!
1) That extant genetic information can be expressed and produce new morphological structures no present in a species
2) That fin rays can transform into new bones
3) that appearance of variety in fin rays can be extrapolated with evidence to demonstrate that new morphological featurees can arise
4) that gene expression can produce new, permanent cartiledge in a species
5) that gene expression can produce new, permanent bones in a species
6) that the expression of genes which define fin rays can cause the rise of other morphological structures, such as bone
7) that there are transitional forms between the knees of humans and apes
8) that the relocation of DNA swappoints is possible without causing gross deformity or death
9) that humans and apes can breed
10) that random mutation can cause little or no change to australiopethicenes for millions of years then somehow target an animal and cause tremendous changes, even morphological ones, in less than 1 million yrs
11) that random mutation can transform duplicate genes into genetic information which defines new morphological structures
...and perhaps 2 dozen more for the wild claims you have made. Please provide these. You have been avoiding this all this while. I require evidence of the following before we continue. You must substanciate your claims with physical, scientific evidence.